kholoudsafir wrote:If I start watching it from this series without any idea of the past ones, would I be lost?

Definitely don't jump ahead in this series. Really no reason at all, and it will ruin basically every worthwhile plotpoint up to this point. As Pmof said, the strongest seasons are the first two, so skipping them is not a good idea.

mangaluva wrote:[spoiler]Also, I still wonder if making Mary an ex-CIA ninja was entirely necessary, especially since that revelation is really about John, not her. It's all about the kind of people and kind of lifestyle that John "likes really", about refuting all of his protestations that he wants a quieter life, even though he's genuinely and legitimately upset that Mary's not what he thought she was. He didn't fall in love with her because he secretly, psychically knew she was a former assassin. Basically, he's been robbed of any chance to have had character development--yes, he was previously established as having an unhealthy addiction to danger, the key word here being unhealthy. John has not only been robbed of the chance to have healed, but also the idea that he's even supposed to. IDK, I'm just kind of uncomfortable and unhappy with the idea that John should be happy that Mary's ex-CIA. Maybe I was just unhappy with the scene because John was very clearly and legitimately upset and Sherlock decided to calm him down by basically going "stop complaining, you know you like it really".[/spoiler]

[spoiler]That scene probably pissed me off the most. Like, uh, no he DIDN'T want to marry someone dangerous. There's no magical force pulling him to dangerous people, he thought that she was a normal person and he married her because she was a normal person. He didn't marry her because she was ex-CIA; he had NO CLUE that she was CIA in the first place. So how the hell does that make any sense?[/spoiler]

I just finished watching the last season. Quite good, but [spoiler]the fact that they chose to protect "Mary" (or whatever her real name is) after discovering who she was and what she had done really disappointed me. I mean, if that's what love makes people do, then it's better to stay completely emotionless.[/spoiler]

Mario2000 wrote:I just finished watching the last season. Quite good, but [spoiler]the fact that they chose to protect "Mary" (or whatever her real name is) after discovering who she was and what she had done really disappointed me. I mean, if that's what love makes people do, then it's better to stay completely emotionless.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]And this is where I add that the thing I really hate about Sherlock is this recurring suggestion that emotions make you weak, that they're a "chemical defect" or "human error", that it's wrong to love or trust anybody--oh wait, these persistently refer to women feeling for people, don't they? Whereas Sherlock and John's all-consuming bromance is extremely important and to be respected and worshipped. Hmmmm.[/spoiler]

mangaluva wrote:[spoiler]And this is where I add that the thing I really hate about Sherlock is this recurring suggestion that emotions make you weak, that they're a "chemical defect" or "human error", that it's wrong to love or trust anybody--oh wait, these persistently refer to women feeling for people, don't they? Whereas Sherlock and John's all-consuming bromance is extremely important and to be respected and worshipped. Hmmmm.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]It's not like emotions always make people weak, but here the situation is too grotesque in my opinion: saving a professional assassin and staying with her without even wanting to learn her real name? If she repented, that would be one thing, but she didn't: when Magnussen started blackmailing her, she resorted to her old methods, instead of turning herself in.[/spoiler]

kholoudsafir wrote:If I start watching it from this series without any idea of the past ones, would I be lost?

A bit, probably. But you really should watch series 1-2, it's only 6 episodes total (1.5 hours long each) and the first two series are much better than the third anyhow.

Jd- wrote:Definitely don't jump ahead in this series. Really no reason at all, and it will ruin basically every worthwhile plotpoint up to this point. As Pmof said, the strongest seasons are the first two, so skipping them is not a good idea.

Thank you, I will see where I can find the previous seasons

Every time I want to give up on DC, it manages to bring me back, it brings me back feelings I know that I will never ever feel or live again.

kholoudsafir wrote:If I start watching it from this series without any idea of the past ones, would I be lost?

A bit, probably. But you really should watch series 1-2, it's only 6 episodes total (1.5 hours long each) and the first two series are much better than the third anyhow.

Jd- wrote:Definitely don't jump ahead in this series. Really no reason at all, and it will ruin basically every worthwhile plotpoint up to this point. As Pmof said, the strongest seasons are the first two, so skipping them is not a good idea.

Thank you, I will see where I can find the previous seasons

Depending on your country, Netflix has the first two seasons streaming. (If it's not available in your country though, you can always use a proxy like mediahint....)

[spoiler]I love Mary, she's fantastic! Also, Anderson's club was hilarious, including their crazy theories. The mystery du jour was fun, but not as interesting as some of the previous ones. John's reaction to seeing Sherlock alive was everything I'd hoped it would be.[/spoiler]

3DS FC: 4699-5851-2068I might wake up early and go running. I also might wake up and win the lottery. The odds are about the same.

Stopwatch wrote:http://cuddlytogas.tumblr.com/post/61803092067/queer-identities-in-sherlock-a-study-in-embarrassing <- I just read this and thought some of you might find it interesting. Warning for Moffat hate.

I wasn't previously aware that the term "queering" was a thing.

I sympathize with the fervent fanbase for having a gay Holmes/Watson pairing, and while I definitely do not think that was in any way Conan Doyle's intention, I also think that Moffat/Gatiss spend an unhealthy amount of time teasing something that isn't going to happen.

There should be more gay couples on TV, at least. Would the "GSM" community (again, not familiar with that term) be content with more gay couples or would they prefer existing characters have bisexual tendencies? I can't really name too many gay characters on long-running series, with one on White Collar being chief among them (in addition to an unrelated lead actor being gay in life but portraying a straight guy).

I can't find the picture, but literally the best representation of queerbaiting I've ever seen was a picture taken from Peanuts with Lucy holding an American football with the text "queer representation" written on it and Charlie Brown looking speculatively at the ball with the text "queer fan" over his head.

Queerbaiting is insulting because it turns entire sexualities into nothing more, never anything more, than the punchline of a joke. "Lol, it's funny because he's acting gay but seriously no he's straight, why in a million years would he actually be gay, he's a main character?"

More shows need queer characters who are not there as a joke. More shows need gay/bi/ace protagonists and couples. More shows need queer characters whose entire presence in the show is not about being queer (Charlie Bradbury, from Supernatural, is about as perfect as it gets and I really need a spinoff show that is entirely about her). And they need to be explicitly, openly queer, not just "Dean sometimes looks like he's checking out dudes in uniform and he has this really really REALLY close relationship with Castiel but he's literally only ever going to kiss, sex or be in a relationship with women".

Being heterosexual is not "the default" or "normal". It's just common. The proportion of queer characters on TV and in movies is nowhere near the proportion of real people who have sexualities other than hetero, and that's problematic.

There are dozens of other areas of under-representation in media (women being another one that Moffat tends to be terrible at), but Moffat's handling of gay or otherwise queer characters is genuinely problematic and Mark Gatiss is not helping. He may be gay himself, but he's spoken extremely rudely and dismissively of bisexuals and lesbians, and while he hasn't spoken on the issue of asexuality at all he does seem to agree with Moffat's statement that asexuals are "boring" and implicitly not worth writing about and not good characters.

Idk, I kind of find Charlie to be a bit Mary Sueish. Like, what are her flaws? ^^;

(Then again, I have to say the only good representations I can think of off the top of my head have to be WTNV, Torchwood (for those who haven't watched it, think Agents of SHIELD, but with aliens, set in Wales and pretty much everyone is bi :V) and HIMYM (from what I've seen of it). Although I have to admit that because I don't watch Coronation Street I only found out this week that they have good trans* representation (by which I mean my Chemistry teacher mentioned it :V).)

@Jd-: I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I'd like to see more "minorities" in non-stereotypical roles, with their numbers being roughly representative of the population in which a show is set. (Though, seriously, I'm glad you brought up "bisexual tendencies" because bi erasure is incredibly frustrating.)

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Sherlock indulges in bi erasure all the time: every time someone asks if/implies that John and Sherlock or a couple John is quick to scream "I'M NOT GAY" or stress that he's with a woman. John, you can like both men and women... and don't even talk to me about Irene Adler.

(On another note, the latest reason that I'm deeply in love with WTNV was that they decided to cast a new voice actor for their gay, hispanic character and cast... a gay, hispanic guy. It's beautiful.)

One of the most badass characters I've seen in a TV show is Omar Little in The Wire, who's gay in the show. But honestly, he is so good, it gets to a point where you wouldn't care even if he slept with men, women or dogs. And that's how I think it should go; characters so interesting that you don't even care about their love inclination. Sure, it's fine for a main character to have a partner, but to make such a big deal of it like writing that article linked above? I understand the concern but it seems like looking for trouble where there's none, this series isn't about queerness to begin with.Maybe that's just me, I have an uncommon opinion about "love" and I just can't understand the urge that people have to find a partner like it's mandatory for happiness. I just don't get it, we should all be wholes, not someone else's better half. That's why I find so interesting characters like Sherlock or Sheldon Cooper. There is more to life than feelings...